Quote:The Queen and Prince Charles are using their little-known power of veto over new laws more than was previously thought, according to Whitehall documents.

At least 39 bills have been subject to Royal approval, with the senior royals using their power to consent or block new laws in areas such as higher education, paternity pay and child maintenance.

Internal Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that on one occasion the Queen vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, which aimed to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

[...]

Legal scholar John Kirkhope, who fought to access the papers following a freedom of information case, said the document revealed senior royals have "real influence and real power".

"There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable," he said.

Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, said the findings showed the Royals "are playing an active role in the democratic process".

He called for greater transparency in order to evaluate whether the powers were "appropriate."

"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," he said.

Playing an active role in the democratic process? If they are not elected or their powers spelled out clearly, this is not exactly a democratic process now is it?
Does anyone in the UK really trust Prince Charles, of all ƒükking people, to have the ultimate say in legislation?

Were you aware the authoriti was still there in any fashion related to legislative decision making?
This comes as a complete WTF for me.
The whole concept of a monarchy full of pageantry yadda yadda, supported by the tax payers, is an assault on my sensibilities.
I suppose it's something you have to grow up with I guess.